Yes, I was banned

Comments

Originally posted by Linna Quote:__________________________________________________________

Really? The following are dev quotes on dual boxing and multiple nationalities, originally assembled by Beltpouch (Jack Simple), who dug stuff about FLS's previous stance on multiple nationalities and doubleboxing out of the beta archives.www.burningsea.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33865&page=6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Executive Producer Paul Cannif(either above, partnered or second to Rusty

As a game designer, I don't see any issues with this. We designed the game so that 2-boxing doesn't have a big advantage, and certainly not something you need to enjoy the game. The 'spying' issue is about the only place I see problems, but much like real-time communication, there is only so much we can do about this.As a game developer, I have no clue if we have legal reasons we'll need to prohibit this activity. So, I can't give you express permission right now to do it or not. We haven't written our final EULA and until we do, there is no EULA to discuss. Having casual chats about the legal stuff is just plain unwise.So, wait and see.

Some of the other issues that you mention about why all the sudden FLS is coming back to this issue I don't know about. Way before insurance made it into the game I had stopped playing because of how the game was being re-invented after it was live. Maybe they should have come out more firmly and stated their opinion about cross-teaming but if they didn't have a issue with it then why even have a limitation on one single account having multiple nation toons attached to it ? That is the same core issue in a way.

The part you highlighted was stated in beta, when the final live EULA had not been written. When the final EULA WAS written, it made no mention of crossrealming. That kinda points to them having reached a decission on the matter.

As to the limitation on the amount of nationalities per account: like I said, selling more boxes sounds like a plausible reason. That is how it used to be in COV/COH. Heroes could not make villains unless they bought the box for the other side, and vice versa (they changed this later on). And another, equally valid possible reason, is that they didn't want it to become the norm. Those who buy multiple accounts for their own use are usually the more hardcore players, not the public in general, something they are well aware of, according to the quotes.

They said 'transfer your toon to another server'. Suuuure. But you could already make toons on that other server on your MAIN account, without having to pay the extra subscription. And keep the toon for the lots? Why? Players still trade lots with players on other servers (which is, regrettably, entirely legal under FLS rules), enabling them to control up to (now) 50 lots on one account. So again, why pay for extra account?

Whichever way you cut it, changing policy this drastically in live is a VERY bad thing to do.

It seems the issue that brought all this to a head was insurance and the exploit associated with that new game mechanic?

And really, that just shows once again how little foresight FLS had/has and how badly designed the game is for an MMO.

It's not the first issue of this type either. And the more I think about it the more I think the Devs realized after release how they have painted themselves into a corner?

Other issues that might be affected by players with multiple accounts I can think of straight away are Port Governance and Naval Command features (when {and IF!} these things ever get into the game).

To be honest I don't think these things will ever get into the game anyway - simply because I don't think FLS ever really thought about how they would be added to the game 'later'.

I think they simply bashed ahead with the design of all the 'cool stuff' they wanted and the most thought they gave to things like Port Governance and the like is "yeah... we'll do that later".

But, now they are actually looking at how they will add it I think they realize that it will be incredibly difficult to integrate into the existing game - and many of the hurdles they face are of their own making.

The Pirate Conquest feature (opening up missions for pirates when they captured a port) was another example of this. It was very "cool". But what about the national players that had missions at that port at the same time?

It seems they just stumble from one thing to the next... and that is no way to run an MMO.

First of all, I'd like to thank you again for responding. Particularly the way that you did; that is, without hostility or being overly defensive - while you were certainly being challenged, I did my best to not be antagonistic about it because, as offended as I was, I had a genuine desire to just "hear the other side of the story." So, thank you.

As you saw in my thread, between two or three posters the gist of what happened with your accounts was conveyed... albeit missing several fine (and important) details. While, as I said in the other thread, I can understand and sympathize with the anger and frustration that both you and your husband must feel (avid gamers like us are very passionate about our chosen hobby, just as passionate as the fat guy at the college football game in December with his shirt off and entire body painted in his school colors), I can't say I entirely agree with you that FLS was 100% in the wrong.

You cite examples of FLS devs saying they're not concerned with cross-teaming to put 1-durability SOLs into pirate hands. In that same example, one of the reasons given is that these SOLs used to be perma-flagged for PvP just as with all class-restricted ships sailed as captures by pirates. As you know, that's no longer the case. You may disagree, but to me that's a big difference. Of course, your accounts were both nationals, so that particular issue doesn't really apply to your situation. The only thing that I can imagine two nationals would benefit from this would be Marks of Victory, which you already addressed.

You highlight that when you finally did get banned for cross-teaming, Aether used the phrase "grandfathered in." It seemed clear to me based on your description of the original correspondence that this was the case... they'd changed the rule and given you an ultimatum, you and your husband offered a compromise and they accepted on the condition that you not cross the new line that had been drawn by the changing needs of the game as seen by FLS. They didn't have to accept any compromise; it's in every game EULA that I've ever bothered reading that policies are subject to change. A suspicious (or maybe just spiteful?) player reported you for something that may have been entirely innocent in your eyes (even though MoVs were involved), but FLS disagreed.

With as many things as we can all point out that need to change with regards to game mechanics, it's to be expected that as these things change, so will the rules. We as players have to adapt to a rules change just like we have to adapt to a changing skill or item.

It does suck that had to give up accounts that you'd spent time and money on but which had come into conflict with new rules, but really... that's about as far as it goes. You demanded special treatment, were given special treatment conditionally, and when they felt the condition(s) were violated, they stopped giving you special treatment.

Having heard most of what I wanted to hear straight from the horse's mouth, I suppose I'm satisfied... I apologize for mistaking you for just another carebear ragepoasting all over the internet because you couldn't handle an internet sailboat game. Though in my defense, had it not been for your "everyone who disagrees with me must be a rabid fanboi" attitude, I might never have given it a second thought.

........ they'd changed the rule and given you an ultimatum, you and your husband offered a compromise and they accepted on the condition that you not cross the new line that had been drawn by the changing needs of the game as seen by FLS. They didn't have to accept any compromise; it's in every game EULA that I've ever bothered reading that policies are subject to change....

This is the most interesting point IMHO. And once again it goes back to gamers 'rights', consumer rights and the legality of EULAs and ToS.

It's a big issue - and one we can never solve here.

While MMOs can change during their 'life' and as a result rules have to change the question really is under what conditions are such changes acceptable?

I think it's an issue that will have to go to court at some point. That in itself is problematic because MMOs can span the globe and consumer laws differ in the US vs everywhere else.

IMHO a rule change is fair enough - provided players have the time to adjust to the change. In the case of a subscription based MMO I would suggest that major rule changes affecting the playability of accounts be given sufficient lead time to allow players to finish their current subscription cycle and unsubscribe if that is what they choose to do.

In other words - players should be entitled to get what they pay for without the fear that the rules will suddenly change and the 'rug pulled out from under them'.

Also, I would suggest that the EULA and rule changes should never be used to cover for bad / poorly thought out design decisions?

I couldn't agree with you more. In most circumstances, it's pretty straightforward. In circumstances like Linna's and her husband's, where the policy change certainly did effect the usefulness of $15 worth of service (multiplied by number of effected accounts), there most definitely should be a period of time to adjust. They gave the option of transferring the characters to another server, sure, but players who are so time invested in one server aren't likely to actually use another server - I agree with Linna (and the others who have said it) that this is an example of game developers not really "getting" their players.

I'm not sure about court involvement, though... Not to try and argue this point (far from it), but after all the virtual goods themselves (that is, the characters and all of those characters' possessions) belongs to the company, which we agree to by clicking "I agree" or "I accept" on the EULA - in effect, we sign a waiver on our efforts. The subscription fee is another matter, but it could be argued that FLS provided the opportunity to continue using those paid-for extra subscriptions by offering the opportunity to transfer the characters to another server. But, I think we've all heard about some pretty crazy lawsuits involving MMO games in the last 12 months... maybe it would come down to a legal crap shoot, but it's doubtful that any individual player would go to the trouble (and expense) of hiring a lawyer to get $15 refunded. In my opinion, the less goverment/legal involvement in MMO games, the better; there's been speculation of attempts to tax virtual possessions somewhere down the line - ridiculous!

...which we agree to by clicking "I agree" or "I accept" on the EULA - in effect, we sign a waiver on our efforts. ...

This is the thing about EULAs.

In Commonwealth Countries these 'agreements' fall under a branch of contract known as a 'ticket case'.

Typically this is a contract where you are made aware of the terms after you exchange money.

Ticket Cases are a very difficult area of law and are by no means 100% binding. In fact - you really have to take the issue to court to get a ruling (the judge will decide).

As for clicking "I agree" or "I accept" there have been some related cases here in Australia.

One particular case put before the Industrial Relations Commission with regard to using the "I agree" button as a substitute for signing an agreement was declined as:

"...the IRC said there was an "air of automaticity" about the annual signing off of employees on NCR's code of conduct, "a degree of mechanical, unthinking routine in employees making a commitment to abide by the code".

So, even in the case where the person concerned admitted clicking "I agree" the commission found that such a process did not equate to an agreement.

Now, please don't think that I am against EULAs in their entirety, but I believe in a fair go for all, including the developers, publishers and distributers.

Sadly, many companies in the computer games industry seem to wield the EULA as a weapon in an effort to get things all their own way. That needs to stop.

Just now seeing this, will reply shortly.Before reading it, I thank and commend Linna for addressing it.EDIT: Have read now.First of all, I'd like to thank you again for responding. Particularly the way that you did; that is, without hostility or being overly defensive - while you were certainly being challenged, I did my best to not be antagonistic about it because, as offended as I was, I had a genuine desire to just "hear the other side of the story." So, thank you.As you saw in my thread, between two or three posters the gist of what happened with your accounts was conveyed... albeit missing several fine (and important) details. While, as I said in the other thread, I can understand and sympathize with the anger and frustration that both you and your husband must feel (avid gamers like us are very passionate about our chosen hobby, just as passionate as the fat guy at the college football game in December with his shirt off and entire body painted in his school colors), I can't say I entirely agree with you that FLS was 100% in the wrong.You cite examples of FLS devs saying they're not concerned with cross-teaming to put 1-durability SOLs into pirate hands. In that same example, one of the reasons given is that these SOLs used to be perma-flagged for PvP just as with all class-restricted ships sailed as captures by pirates. As you know, that's no longer the case. You may disagree, but to me that's a big difference. Of course, your accounts were both nationals, so that particular issue doesn't really apply to your situation. The only thing that I can imagine two nationals would benefit from this would be Marks of Victory, which you already addressed.You highlight that when you finally did get banned for cross-teaming, Aether used the phrase "grandfathered in." It seemed clear to me based on your description of the original correspondence that this was the case... they'd changed the rule and given you an ultimatum, you and your husband offered a compromise and they accepted on the condition that you not cross the new line that had been drawn by the changing needs of the game as seen by FLS. They didn't have to accept any compromise; it's in every game EULA that I've ever bothered reading that policies are subject to change. A suspicious (or maybe just spiteful?) player reported you for something that may have been entirely innocent in your eyes (even though MoVs were involved), but FLS disagreed.With as many things as we can all point out that need to change with regards to game mechanics, it's to be expected that as these things change, so will the rules. We as players have to adapt to a rules change just like we have to adapt to a changing skill or item.It does suck that had to give up accounts that you'd spent time and money on but which had come into conflict with new rules, but really... that's about as far as it goes. You demanded special treatment, were given special treatment conditionally, and when they felt the condition(s) were violated, they stopped giving you special treatment.Having heard most of what I wanted to hear straight from the horse's mouth, I suppose I'm satisfied... I apologize for mistaking you for just another carebear ragepoasting all over the internet because you couldn't handle an internet sailboat game. Though in my defense, had it not been for your "everyone who disagrees with me must be a rabid fanboi" attitude, I might never have given it a second thought.

A few important things you're forgetting about.

1) The term "grandfathered in" is a legal term, indicating that the old rules apply to you, not the new ones. It automatically implied I could play on the way I had, using both the French and Spanish toon, as long as I didn't exploit, grief, etc. And I didn't. They knew from the previous correspondence that not playing the French toon anymore was unacceptable to me, to the point where I HAD cancelled my accounts, and that I was trying to find a way to make it so that they could make an exception without making a formal exception.

The 'evidence' they sent me, lifted from chat logs was... odd to say the least:

9/3/2008 3:13:20 AM chat_society i'm currently afk hauling on frenchie, but will bring Linna on after

9/3/2008 4:23:11 AM chat_society lol

9/3/2008 4:23:16 AM chat_society don't I ever

9/3/2008 6:03:00 AM chat_society always need, sec

9/3/2008 12:25:11 PM chat_emote_standard dance

9/3/2008 1:06:56 PM chat_society it might have

9/3/2008 1:07:24 PM tell Alejandra lita Willem van Richter wants to fight you, just has to drop off some stuff first

This chat will look choppy, because it only shows my side, and 3/4 of it was in ventrilo. It covers me hauling on the french FT, me and Dragon arranging the fight that doomed me, me helping two french friends arrange a fight (please note the mutal consent of the players) and me telling the guild my mission holder toon was on line, so people could run a farm mission. I really for the life of me don't see anything that breaks the OLD rules, though the fact I was playing both my French toons and my Spanish ones was against the new ones.

2) While I totally agree that the introduction of insurance was extremely exploitable, we, the players, had warned them about this. They implemented it anyway. We - including almost all of the pirates - were also against changing the flagging rules for pirates sailing invalid ships. This too they introduced anyway. So what is the logic in breaking the game, and then punishing your paying customers for it? Like I already indicated, I KNOW how they could have detected exploits, making it possible to punish the guilty and leave the innocent be. But that would have cost some (not even all that many) programming resources and man hours. Too much apparently.

3) Eula's aren't worth the virtual paper they're written on. Every single last one of them is full of hedging clauses like 'this may not apply in your country/territory' and 'if any part of this agreement should be deemed in violation of the law, this does not invalidate the rest of the agreement'. Those clauses are there for good reasons.

Theoretically a EULA could contain a clause making you promise your firstborn to the company selling you the software. But the law says you are not allowed to do so. And the law ALWAYS takes precedence over contracts. And please note that the law that holds sway is the law of the country in which the product is sold. It's illegal to sell products that do not comply with local law (e.g. contain prohibited substances, unhygenic products, prohibited knowledge, violate customer rights, violate privacy laws, etc).

FLS acted immorally and, in my considered oppion, illegally by implementing drastic changes in a live game environment that basically robbed many customers of both work and money. I'd never have bought the multiple accounts if I'd had been clear from the start that what I wanted was illegal. Especially not that last box, that I only got to enjoy for 2 weeks before I had to cancel it. And I had every reason to believe it was NOT illegal, by their own mouths.

People still pay to play this game? Can someone please explain to me how? What is it about this game that keeps your subscription? I am perplexed...

the Crafting and ship battles are great.... everything else... I guess for some thats enough.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.Samuel Adams

POTBS had severe technical problems from the launch, those were more or less fixed. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the poor game design, lack of features, unbalanced pvp etc.

Having all that in mind I am of the opinion that FLS should be happy that people wanted to buy and subscribe for multiple accounts. Quite simply with the amount of bugs, poor design, unbalanced features etc (the whole RvR concept as implemented) the least of FLS problems are people playing opposing factions with multiple accounts. Then again FLS showed poor judgement time and again and I think this is just another line in a long record of bad decisions.

It is pretty much the same as redisigning female avatars and promoting that as some sort of accomplishment and change.

As somebody said, rearranging deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking.

Actually, Linna was banned for the game for her avatars outfit. Color coordination and accessorizoning weren't exactly her strong points.I saw her character on the docks of Havana just once when I wasn't wearing sunglasses. Blinded me.

Hey now, don't confuse me with Brie... wish I had a screenshot of THAT outfit.

Actually, Linna was banned for the game for her avatars outfit. Color coordination and accessorizoning weren't exactly her strong points.I saw her character on the docks of Havana just once when I wasn't wearing sunglasses. Blinded me.

Hey now, don't confuse me with Brie... wish I had a screenshot of THAT outfit.

Actually, Linna was banned for the game for her avatars outfit. Color coordination and accessorizoning weren't exactly her strong points.I saw her character on the docks of Havana just once when I wasn't wearing sunglasses. Blinded me.

Hey now, don't confuse me with Brie... wish I had a screenshot of THAT outfit.

Linna

I tried to get a screenshot of Brie's outfit, my computer refused.

Maybe I am confusing your avatar with Brie's. If so, sorry.

Gads, even a Jamaican wouldn't dress like Brie did.....

These are some of the Linna's in the games I've played/am still playing:

Actually, Linna was banned for the game for her avatars outfit. Color coordination and accessorizoning weren't exactly her strong points.I saw her character on the docks of Havana just once when I wasn't wearing sunglasses. Blinded me.

Hey now, don't confuse me with Brie... wish I had a screenshot of THAT outfit.

Linna

I tried to get a screenshot of Brie's outfit, my computer refused.

Maybe I am confusing your avatar with Brie's. If so, sorry.

Gads, even a Jamaican wouldn't dress like Brie did.....

These are some of the Linna's in the games I've played/am still playing:

...which we agree to by clicking "I agree" or "I accept" on the EULA - in effect, we sign a waiver on our efforts. ...

This is the thing about EULAs.

In Commonwealth Countries these 'agreements' fall under a branch of contract known as a 'ticket case'.

Typically this is a contract where you are made aware of the terms after you exchange money.

Ticket Cases are a very difficult area of law and are by no means 100% binding. In fact - you really have to take the issue to court to get a ruling (the judge will decide).

As for clicking "I agree" or "I accept" there have been some related cases here in Australia.

One particular case put before the Industrial Relations Commission with regard to using the "I agree" button as a substitute for signing an agreement was declined as:

"...the IRC said there was an "air of automaticity" about the annual signing off of employees on NCR's code of conduct, "a degree of mechanical, unthinking routine in employees making a commitment to abide by the code".

So, even in the case where the person concerned admitted clicking "I agree" the commission found that such a process did not equate to an agreement.

Now, please don't think that I am against EULAs in their entirety, but I believe in a fair go for all, including the developers, publishers and distributers.

Sadly, many companies in the computer games industry seem to wield the EULA as a weapon in an effort to get things all their own way. That needs to stop.

The problem, though, is that they know you probably can't afford a lawyer, and won't hire one over something as trivial as a game subscription (unless there is an underlying professional or copyright matter). In which case it really doesn't matter for them how outrageous they can get with their EULA, since nobody will challenge it outside of a class-action suit (which rules out case-by-case bans like Linna's).

At best, what you're going to get is a public backlash (such as the DRM limitations of "Spore") but no lawsuit to question the legality of this or that clause in the EULA.

Also of note: That latest annoyance of not only making you accept the EULA every time you launch the game, but forcing you also to scroll all the way to the bottom before you can accept. (See Warhammer Online, for starters.) I wonder what impact, if any, this could have on the law -- whether that still conveys an "air of automaticity".

If it makes you feel any better, FLS is completely in the wrong with their actions of banning. As long as you had 2 separate paid accounts, FLS has no authority over how you play them. You corrected the only problematic factor after the new rules when you transfered all of the same faction toons on to the same accounts.

HOWEVER...

You brought up a possible exploit with insurance. Now, I've never played PotBS, but I have played Dark Age of Camelot and in DAoC, there was a possible exploit of gaining Realm Points between multiple accounts simply by killing each other. Now, I realize it's a very thin line between you and your husband doing this or you and a complete stranger. The thing is, DEVs can't determine who legit players are and which are the exploiters.

You say you traveled an honest road with your dual faction accounts. In fact, you even had direct authority from a DEV to carry on with your unique situation. In fact, it wasn't till 3-4 months later you got banned for scuttling a ship.

If it makes you feel any better, FLS is completely in the wrong with their actions of banning. As long as you had 2 separate paid accounts, FLS has no authority over how you play them. You corrected the only problematic factor after the new rules when you transfered all of the same faction toons on to the same accounts.HOWEVER...You brought up a possible exploit with insurance. Now, I've never played PotBS, but I have played Dark Age of Camelot and in DAoC, there was a possible exploit of gaining Realm Points between multiple accounts simply by killing each other. Now, I realize it's a very thin line between you and your husband doing this or you and a complete stranger. The thing is, DEVs can't determine who legit players are and which are the exploiters.You say you traveled an honest road with your dual faction accounts. In fact, you even had direct authority from a DEV to carry on with your unique situation. In fact, it wasn't till 3-4 months later you got banned for scuttling a ship.My question is this...Does scuttling a ship have anything to do with the insurance exploit?

Nothing whatsoever. The guy could have scuttled the ship himself, and gotten full insurance back for that act. But at that point, most people felt pressing the scuttle button was boring. If you were going to destroy it anyway, you might as well pvp it to death. Getting single battles was hard, however, the risk of a gank always imminent, so we usually just agreed on a time and place, and what numbers to bring. The battles were real, and either side could come out the victor.

Besides the adrenaline rush of PVP, the one other thing that made it different from normal scuttling, was that the victor would get marks of victory (MOV). If the other side didn't fight, and just let you kill them, that WOULD have been iffy. That is not what happened in our case, however. I only won by rageboarding the other ship, and I was the better avcom fighter. The combat logs would have made quite clear that this was a fight, not a farm.

There is nothing secret about the exploits, we talked about it in the public forums before it even went live, so let me explain. If a pirate captured your ship, you would get insurance for the ship durability you lost. If the one who lost the ship was an alt of the pirate's, that person would literally have their cake and eat it, they'd have both the insurance money AND a new ship, with some MOV thown into the bargain.

Another, related, exploit, was MOV farming. This could be done with friends, guildmates, or their own accounts. If the 'defender' was a pirate, they would use cheap level 50 captured deeds. If the 'defender' was a national, they would use cheap, easily replaced ships (so cheap insurance wasn't even relevant). The 'attacker' only had to hit them once, and if the 'defenders' then abandoned ship, the 'attacker' would get full MOV. Rinse and repeat.

The first exploit could be detected quite easily by adding a shipbuilder ID to each ship, and track suspicious transactions. The durability trading was typically done with bundle boats, so any shipbuilder losing a lot of bundle boats to pirates, would have stood out like a sore thumb (we kept our bundle boats well away from pirates, for starters: captures weren't all that usual). The second exploit could be detected by setting a script to monitor MOV gain. 30 MOV in 5 minutes would definitely warrant investigation. In both cases, however, it would have taken CSR time to investigate. Someone probably thought it would have been too expensive.

Neither exploit needed multiple acounts really, it just needed some partners in crime. And from what I heard, that was usually how it happened, and may still be happening.

If the devs in DAoC or EVE only would get rid of all these multi-accounts, too. In my eyes multi-accounting is a perverted form of RMT.So not trying to make a personal attack, but in general I applaud to developers, who try to stop this kind of cancer.

That would be nice, perhaps, but would there be a publisher in its right mind that would say no to "do you want free money?"?

If the devs in DAoC or EVE only would get rid of all these multi-accounts, too. In my eyes multi-accounting is a perverted form of RMT.So not trying to make a personal attack, but in general I applaud to developers, who try to stop this kind of cancer.

That's an extremely narrow view. In many games, having multiple accounts is almost a must. In some you cannot trade between your own alts (POTBS), or you are limited to one toon per server (old SWG) or toons will not be able to function solo, making a buffbot alts a necessity (try a stone tank in CO), to name but a few examples. Now you can come with the 'get friends' argument, but that is not always how it works. By far most people want to be able to log in and have some fun without having to wait for others. A lot more people that you'd think play in off hours, so they are limited in who they could ask for help in the first place. And frankly, it's none of your damn business how other people play the game, as long as they do not negatively impact YOUR ability to play it.

And to use a POTBS example: So in your view, someone who pays for 4 accounts to use 40 lots is bad, and someone who trades lots with players on other servers (which is perfectly legal), and also has 40 lots available, is OK? Seriously...

Originally posted by LinnaThat's an extremely narrow view. In many games, having multiple accounts is almost a must. In some you cannot trade between your own alts (POTBS), or you are limited to one toon per server (old SWG) or toons will not be able to function solo, making a buffbot alts a necessity (try a stone tank in CO), to name but a few examples. Now you can come with the 'get friends' argument, but that is not always how it works. By far most people want to be able to log in and have some fun without having to wait for others. A lot more people that you'd think play in off hours, so they are limited in who they could ask for help in the first place. And frankly, it's none of your damn business how other people play the game, as long as they do not negatively impact YOUR ability to play it.And to use a POTBS example: So in your view, someone who pays for 4 accounts to use 40 lots is bad, and someone who trades lots with players on other servers (which is perfectly legal), and also has 40 lots available, is OK? Seriously...Linna

In the PotBS forum yesterday, somebody complained about how you HAVE to do dailies every day like it's a job. This isn't true; I've done the dailies all of twice, I get my money from MoT/MoV and a little bit of econ every 3rd or 4th day (depending on the wind). All these things you're saying you HAVE to buy multiple accounts for, you don't HAVE to do; you CHOOSE to do. You CHOOSE to buy yourself an army of alts for whatever reason. And just because you expect the argument of "make moar friends" doesn't make it any less valid an argument.

I played EVE for over a year, ran my own corporation and participated in two large-scale 0.0 alliance wars (one was the .-A-. vs. IAC war, the other was G00DFELLAS vs. Pure./IRON). 0.0 Alliance action is the place where you run into the most two, three, four+ account-holding players - hell, the Industry director in MY corp have 4 accounts just for CYNO ALTS, then another account with an actual alt that he used! Not me, I had one account, one character and two cyno alts. I didn't CHOOSE to have a bunch of alts or extra accounts and I made out okay.

It's a game, there's nothing mandatory about it - least of all paying extra for more accounts!

...The problem, though, is that they know you probably can't afford a lawyer, and won't hire one over something as trivial as a game subscription (unless there is an underlying professional or copyright matter). In which case it really doesn't matter for them how outrageous they can get with their EULA, since nobody will challenge it outside of a class-action suit (which rules out case-by-case bans like Linna's).At best, what you're going to get is a public backlash (such as the DRM limitations of "Spore") but no lawsuit to question the legality of this or that clause in the EULA.Also of note: That latest annoyance of not only making you accept the EULA every time you launch the game, but forcing you also to scroll all the way to the bottom before you can accept. (See Warhammer Online, for starters.) I wonder what impact, if any, this could have on the law -- whether that still conveys an "air of automaticity".

I think the companies are taking a gamble if they think the MMO Gamer of 2008 probably can't afford a lawyer... with the average age of gamers increasing many MMO gamers ARE lawyers!

It's also not just a matter of cost... you get people like me who will pursue a matter on principle if they get riled up enough. But, most likely, a case of this sort will be brought to court by the rich parents of some spoiled brat who gets banned on dubious grounds.

I look at this like I look at game design and exploits: If it can happen - even if it is unlikely - it will happen. It's only a matter of time.

As for class actions - I mentioned the ACCC previously. This Australian Consumer body will bring class actions on behalf of consumers here if they think it worthy. This is the same body that has (successfully) taken Sony to court over people making modifications to Playstations (Chipping) and also had the regional 'lock' removed from DVD players here.

Yeah - the WAR EULA (making you scroll down to the bottom) made me laugh.

In order for there to be a contract their must be a 'meeting of the minds' - for that reason EULAs will always be on shaky ground.